The Absolute Truth

for discussing science, relationships, religion or non-BK spirituality.
  • Message
  • Author

new knowledge

ex-Vishnu Party

  • Posts: 373
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2007

The Absolute Truth

Post20 Apr 2009

1) Is 'the 100% Absolute Truth' just a myth & hypothetical? Or, does it really exist, i.e. is 'the 100% Absolute Truth' a valid concept? If the 100% Absolute Truth is not True, then what is True?

2) Is the 100% Absolute Truth not Eternal, i.e. does not the 100% Absolute Truth exist during the whole time duration of the Kalpa & is it that it comes into existance only during the period of the Confluence Age & dissolves or gets faded after the completion of the Confluence Age? Then, does the Absolute Truth partially converts into falseness during the Copper & the Iron Age? If the Absolute Truth is not Eternal, then what is Eternal?

3) Or, is it that the 100% Absolute Truth is Eternal, i.e. it does exist during the whole time duration of a Kalpa, irrespective of whether it is the Confluence Age drama or the broad drama; but that it gets revealed (to the world) only during the Confluence Age & that we are not aware about it during the broad drama due to the influence of Maya ???

4) Is it necessary to wait until the Confluence Age comes, for our spiritual upliftment & is not there any chance of spiritual upliftment during the broad drama, even though the 100% Absolute Truth is supposed to be Eternal?

5) Is the Absolute Truth practically approachable? Or, is it that even though the Absolute Truth is supposed to be valid, it is not possible to practically approach it? If the Absolute Truth could NEVER be approached & if it is just a myth, why are all of us wasting our time in search of Truth?

Terry

ex-BK

  • Posts: 389
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2009
  • Location: OZ

Re: The Absolute Truth

Post21 Apr 2009

The absolute truth for you is what your consciousness is now. As consciousness changes, truth (and perception of it) changes. Life is change. So truth will change.

For me, truth is green, not
red.
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10450
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: The Absolute Truth

Post21 Apr 2009

No, that is the subjective, or at the very most, a temporal truth. One really should not confuse to two together, terry.

Are we asking if there is an objectively absolute truth? Of course, there could or would have to be. But what real or practical value does it have.
new knowledge wrote:if it is just a myth, why are all of us wasting our time in search of Truth?

If you are stuck with the idea of a 5,000 year cycle, perhaps http://bk-pbk.info might suit you better? There you might find other individuals who share such beliefs.

Largely, I agree, unless we are seeking to and willing to engage ourselves in the "business" of selling such an "absolute truths" there is no reason for the greatest proportion of humanity to waste any such time at all in the matter. it is far better that they just get on with their lives, look after their families, look after the environment, be good people and move on.

Therefore, is seeking that ideal merely a symptom of having too much or having some other kind of disorder and imbalance within one's life? What is the point?

To the rich and secure and carefree (and, let's face it, those are lagely who the BKs are targetting), "The Truth" is just another acquisition, another status symbol, another sword to joust with, another ball to kick around with friends ... bubble gum for their minds.

This topic merges nicely with the one on "however did we get hooked?". I cant remember the title now.

In practical terms, we read a "cosmic" book about Paramhansa or Sivananda, were seduced by the romance, it compiled upon all the fairy stories, myth and legends that are buried within our counsciousness and ... bingo ... we fell for it.

new knowledge

ex-Vishnu Party

  • Posts: 373
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2007

Re: The Absolute Truth

Post23 Apr 2009

ex-l wrote:If you are stuck with the idea of a 5,000 year cycle, perhaps http://bk-pbk.info might suit you better?

I do NOT believe in BK 5,000 year time cycle model, but I also strongly oppose both the linear & circular models of time.
Largely, I agree ... we fell for it.

Totally irrelevant topiic! I am neither a costumer executive of BK Gyan bussiness nor their advertising agent. Brother ex-l, I highly respect you, so I cannot expect such irrelevant reponses from you? How do you claim that I am selling BK Gyan here in this thread? I am totally tired of BKism & my aim is to save the lives of BK-affected Brothers & Sisters.

Though, I use BK terminology in my posts, that's my strategy to attack BKism. Just as you attack BKs, externally, by exposing their frauds, scandals; similarly, I also attack them, internally, by posting articles withing the framework of their knowledge. But, please come to the point.

Are we asking if there is an objectively absolute truth? Of course, there could or would have to be. But what real or practical value does it have?

I accept, the Absolute Truth may not have any practical value; but, is it really usless even to write just a single word about the Absolute Truth? Should this thread be blocked? Before 500 years, the issue of 'space travelling' was not real or practical, but today it has become a reality. Similarly, I've just simply put queries (not put any rigid theory) about the practical approach to the Absolute Truth (in near future).
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10450
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: The Absolute Truth

Post23 Apr 2009

Oh, I found the link; How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?. One element of that is having been led, wanting to be led, into believe in concepts like "knowing" the Absolute Truth. Practically and logically, it must be impossible ... however, I do agree that the study of logic is a part of the real "art of thinking".

So why do we give value to the idea? Schools of Philosophy are like art galleries where talented and creative artists perform their mental stunts and repeat their poetry to me. And some of them very bad ones. At best, it appears to be a good business for few, milking the rich or wealthy, a living for some and an expense on the rest of us.
new knowledge wrote:I accept, the Absolute Truth may not have any practical value; but, is it really usless even to write just a single word about the Absolute Truth?

Most people have difficulty knowing more than a few telephone numbers, so how could any of us "know" the "Absolute Truth"? I did once ... but then I forgot where I left it.

All I can do is suggest the question people ought to be asking is, "what is the purpose of someone presenting themselves as an individual "knows" the Truth?" its not the knowing, it is the purpose that "knowing" is being put to.

If anyone does not know the term, they would well served studying the evolution, or decline, of the Greek philosohpy "sophism" into modern usage; sophism, sophist, and sophistry. It has become a derogatory terms, much due to those later sophists charging a fee for their philosophising. Sophism is said to be an argument used for deceiving someone. Whilst it may be well crafted, and seeming logical, it is actually wrong or being seduce or intimidate the audience into agreeing, e.g. appealing to the one's prejudices and emotions rather than logic, e.g. raising doubts rather than making solid, sustainable assertions.

I rather encourage the benefits of pratical thoughts and practical skills. There are few employment opportunities for poets and philosophers and even less than actually feed their family off them.

OK, thank you for your clarification. Best make your point within the context of this forum then.
User avatar

frisbee

ex-BK

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2008

Re: The Absolute Truth

Post24 Apr 2009

terry wrote:the absolute truth for you

That's a contradiction in terms.

Terry

ex-BK

  • Posts: 389
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2009
  • Location: OZ

Re: The Absolute Truth

Post25 Apr 2009

terry wrote:the absolute truth for you
frisbee wrote:That's a contradiction in terms.

Not at all, though I understand where you come from with that statement. My benchmark is Einstein's "Truth and Reality are two different things".

Truth is related to language. It requires subject and object. In Buddhism, there is the concept of Graha and Grahika - the grasper and the grasped. Truth depends on both.

There's the well known conundrum (the Western koan), "if a tree falls in the forest, but no-one is there to see or hear it, did it happen?" This mind game plays upon the relationship - does the reality of the event depend on the perception of it's happening. Common sense says "no", The Tree exists whether we know of it or not, but the tricks of language can say otherwise.

Truth is a lot less of a riddle than that tree koan. If you remove all the humans from the universe, there may still be the reality of the universe and The Tree, but is there any truth? Truth, unlike The Tree, does not exist independently. Truth is relational, between reality (grasped) and the grasper. That's why no believers, no God. We need a creator, so we create one!

We as a species matured enough to understand "truth is relative" (e.g.trickery), so this conceptually implies the converse, "Absolute Truth". This in turn implies someone to grasp the Absolute Truth - God! But because we conceive it in mind does not make it so in fact.

Objective truth is defined by pre-determined criteria or starting points, that's why "paradox" usually reveals a wider "truth" than "orthodox", e.g. the paradox between Newtonian & Quantum Physics.

Rabindranath Tagore (philosopher/poet): "There is the reality of paper, infinitely different from the reality of literature. For the kind of mind possessed by the moth which eats that paper literature is absolutely non-existent, yet for man's mind literature has a greater value of truth than the paper itself."

Then there' s the poetic truth of Freidrich Schiller (philosopher/poet) - "Of what value is the whole universe if there be not a single man to rejoice at the sunrise?"

(That's from memory, as I tried to verify the above line - couldn't find it - I came across these other gems by Schiller, which resonate with my "truth")

“A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished.”

“A healthy nature needs no God or immortality”
User avatar

frisbee

ex-BK

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2008

Re: The Absolute Truth

Post26 Apr 2009

What absolute twaddle.
User avatar

leela

ex-BK

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2008

Re: The Absolute Truth

Post26 Apr 2009

Terry wrote:But because we conceive it in mind does not make it so in fact.

Now that's the absolute truth!

Searching for truth implies searching for a concept in our own conceptualised, external environment. In our minds, in other words. When I stopped searching, I found the truth had been right here all along, absolutely in spite of what my mind would have it be, and nothing at all like I ever thought it would be.

Terry

ex-BK

  • Posts: 389
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2009
  • Location: OZ

Re: The Absolute Truth

Post26 Apr 2009

frisbee wrote:what absolute twaddle.

That's easy to say but changes nothing. Please, as you seem so clear on the subject Frisbee, show us where truth exists, if it is not in the mind of the perceiver?
User avatar

frisbee

ex-BK

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2008

Re: The Absolute Truth

Post26 Apr 2009

It's a joke joyce.
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10450
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: The Absolute Truth

Post26 Apr 2009

terry wrote:show us where truth exists, if it is not in the mind of the perceiver?

Surely, by your own logic, that would depend on "truth" being solely defined as "that which is in the mind of the perceiver" ... and I waiting to see how you define mind if you suggest there is no soul. Perhaps what you mean is, "show us where truth exists, if it is not electrical activity in a piece of meat we call the brain?".

There are many, many definitions of "truth", classic and contemporary. And, by that, I only mean definitions of the word not what "truth" actually is. Frankly, I find that kind of philosophy very, very dry and am not sure of what the practical purpose of it is.

I think it is usually fairest to listen closely to the person that is using, within the context that they are using it, and attempt understand what definition they are using. Surely the concept here is the BKWSU philosophy (or "The Knowledge"), as "The Truth"; and the point ... or futility ... in pursuing it. A fact which is indisputably correct, e.g. the BKs claim all of time is exactly 5,000 years long. That does not depend on a "grasper" at all ... unless is it a Senior Sister grasping for your donation.

Without wishing to second the "waddle" motion, its still like a typical New Agey BKWSU service programme ... poetic (perhaps) but with no practical purpose beyond captvating an audience. Blah, blah, blah ... broadly mention some religion or another (hopefully a bit that no one in the audience actually knows about) ... blah blah blah ... add a quote from a wiseman or two who agree with you ... blah blah blah ... careful not to send the audience to a hypnogic trance just yet ... blah blah blah ... your point.

OK, let's see where new knowledge wants to take us, or sell us ... Call me jaded, but as far as I can see these days is; the point to "The Absolute Truth" is selling them a book as they leave your lecture or keeping them entertained enough that they work for free and give you 10% of their wages.

For me, its about question that part of us which is gullable to value of ideas like, "The Absolute Truth" rather than, "what you really need to do, or do next". Back to the topic, "how were we fooled?"

Terry

ex-BK

  • Posts: 389
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2009
  • Location: OZ

Re: The Absolute Truth

Post28 Apr 2009

What the last two correspondents seem to be missing is that I am agreeing that there is no absolute truth. So you don't like reasoned argument because it reminds you of someone else's argument. Then let' s forget that.

The simple point - reality and life is tangible. Truth is intangible. It has no reality except as concept. That's why we once thought Gyan is the truth, and now we don't.

Or do I misunderstand you, and you think there is?

starchild

ex-BK

  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2009

Re: The Absolute Truth

Post29 Apr 2009

Hi, I am new to the forum.

Is truth not that which is true as opposed to that which is not true ... or is that too simple?
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10450
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: The Absolute Truth

Post29 Apr 2009

That is true. At every step on the way.
terry wrote:What the last two correspondents seem to be missing is that I am agreeing that there is no absolute truth ... The simple point - reality and life is tangible. Truth is intangible. It has no reality except as concept. That's why we once thought Gyan is the truth, and no we don't.

Rather than "intangible", I would rather say far beyond any individual's grasp ... even an allegedly "Supreme" soul. Logically and conversely, I would have to say there WAS always an "absolute truth" on a macroscopic scale AND at any given microscopic scale (as in an "all that is for all time" versus any one specific incident or artificat) ... but how could anyone know even a tiny fraction of it? Subjectivite views are just an intellectual fist fighting to see how gets whose way.

So then we look NOT at the distraction of the "fist fighting", or at best "dharma battles", but rather at the tanglible ... as you point out ... USE of these words, concepts and forms.

    "Its not what you got, its what you do with it".
What I would have been better for me to say, Terry, is that I accept and am more interested in your own ideas, in your own words, of your own experiences, relating to the topic at hand (the BKWSU) rather than a assemblage of wonderful "concepts trouvé". I am troubled by the use of broad, generalised statements like, "in Buddhism ... according to Christianity ..." as if they were one thing, for all time and of any great or specific value to us. Its good to give credit elsewhere when the brilliance of mind is not one's own but when the brilliance is called upon, prosaically, to make more important one's own best efforts, I think one has to be cautious and wind it down.

As with religion, so with "absolute truth" ... I think an interesting "proof" of it is NOT for individuals to try doing for a period and see what difference it made BUT for everyone to stop doing for 5 years or so in order to see if it made any difference at all to life.

I mean, if a slave trader offered you to try out slavery by slipping on this nice collar for a while ... "willingly suspend your disbelief, just for a minute!" ... just to see if you liked the feel of it, or not ... "its your choice, you can leave any time you wish" ... would you put, or recommend putting, the collar on!?! I doubt it.

    So with mental slave traders ...
This is what I rankle at your repeating of the BKWSU's line ... "no one asks you to join, you can leave at any moment" ... is that I do not believe it is as simple as straightfoward as that. That is part of the myth. All of these key words llike God, Truth, Absolute Truth pull at strings within individuals that many are largely unaware of and beyond their conscious control. And then the Stockholm Syndrome's got you. All one needs a trick or two ... like a bottle on a string with some fruit in it * ... and you can capture, hold, life off and trade your slaves for the rest of your or their life. (This is how I, honestly, see the BKWSU now).

* like a bottle on a string with some fruit in it -

Refers the system used for capturing monkeys where the captors use heavy bottles, with long narrow necks, into which they deposit a handful of sweet-smelling nuts. In South Indian they are said to use a coconut hollowed out from one end and chained to a stake in the ground with sweet rice is placed inside. The hole in the coconut is big enough for a monkey to put its hand in and grab the rice, but too small for it to remove its fist with the sweet rice. This metaphor is widely used elsewhere.
The bottles are dropped on the jungle floor, and the captors return the next morning to find a monkey trapped next to each bottle. The monkey, attracted by the aromatic scent of the nuts, comes to investigate the bottle, the nuts, and is trapped. The monkey cannot take its hand out of the bottle as long it's holding the nuts, but it is unwilling to open its hand and let them go. The bottle is too heavy to carry away, so the monkey is trapped.
Next

Return to Anything goes